Social media pages are 'ads'

Media writer

A RULING that Facebook is an advertising medium - and not just a way to communicate - will force companies to vet comments posted by the public to ensure they are not sexist, racist or factually inaccurate.

In a move that could change the nature of the social networking site forever, companies could be fined or publicly shamed for the comments that appear on their Facebook ''brand'' pages.

Last month the advertising industry watchdog issued a judgment in which it said comments made by ''fans'' of a vodka brand's Facebook page were ads and must therefore comply with industry self-regulatory codes, and therefore consumer protection laws.

A media lawyer is warning the Advertising Standards Board's ruling on Smirnoff's Facebook page will put the onus back on companies to be more vigilant about the nature of the comments people are posting to their company pages.

Advertisement

Large advertisers such as Qantas, Telstra and Coles are increasingly reliant on their Facebook pages to get consumers to ''like'' them and get free referrals to their networks of friends.

John Swinson, a partner at law firm King & Wood Mallesons, said the board's ruling ''turned people's opinions into statements of facts''. He said if, for example, a member of the public posted a comment on Smirnoff's site that claimed it was the purest Russian vodka and would lead to success with the opposite sex, and Smirnoff failed to remove it, then the company could be liable on several counts.

''Smirnoff is Australian, not Russian. So, that is false. It may not be the purest, so that could also be misleading. And to imply that you would have greater success with girls would contravene the advertising codes,'' Mr Swinson said.

In a note to clients, Mr Swinson warned that the standards that governed regular TV, radio or billboard advertising might now apply to third-party posts on Facebook pages. And because the competition watchdog was cracking down on claims made by companies in social media - principally by people who are paid to do so - Mr Swinson warned that advertisers could end up in court.

Although the Advertising Standards Board dismissed the original complaint about Smirnoff, which centred on sexism, obscene language and under-age drinking, it ruled industry codes applied not only to what a company posted on its Facebook page but to user-generated comments that followed.

27 comments

Duh... Really?

Commenter

Kel

Date and time

August 06, 2012, 6:43AM

No not really at all.......

A company shouldn't be held responsible for what a 3rd party says about it publicly. The fact companies can take down posts by others is purely a technical feature of facebook's platform. What would happen if facebook changed that feature?

Commenter

Cameron

Date and time

August 06, 2012, 8:29AM

A business may not be responsible for what a third-party says about it publicly but they are responsible for what they publish through their own channels. If I put up a sign with my businesses trademark saying that Joe down the street said my product was something that it wasn't, I'm still responsible as the one who put up the sign.

Secondly, while a business is not responsible for what a third-party says about it publicly, the third-part *is* responsible for what it says about the business publicly... or they may find themselves being hauled up in front of a judge for defamation or some other such charge. I'm not going to go out and make incorrect claims about Smirnoff because I don't want their lawyers going to town on me.

People are so naive when it comes to understanding what Facebook actually is. Your comments are not private opinions in a semi-public meeting space (e.g. the local pub) - they are User Generated Content... crowd-sourced copy published by your favourite company to help sell their products. If you want to get involved in helping to market brand X because you love it, go for it.. but you need to meet the requirements of the ASB. Pretty simple really.

Commenter

m.a

Date and time

August 06, 2012, 11:39AM

Wow Cameron - ignorant much? It's as if you think that every comment on the page is from a legitimate 3rd party and no one is paid to put in complimentary information... That'd be like looking at newspaper comments and assuming no one there was affiliated with a party.

Commenter

narc

Location

Melb

Date and time

August 06, 2012, 11:43AM

I agree with the article above.. however what concerns me more is the contents posted that are abusing and vulgar by mainly teenagers and adolescents. If anything needs to be moderated it's that as some go too far and it's just not acceptable - there is no need for such abuse nor language on a media site and parents do are often not aware of what their children are posting. More goes on via the inboxes and they too should be set up by Facebook to disallow vulgar language and cyber bullies brought into line.

Commenter

fb user

Date and time

August 06, 2012, 7:00AM

I have no idea what anyone is doing on Facebook in the first place. It's the most mind-numbing, two dimensional, superficial tripe I've ever seen.

And, of course, the vulture companies think they can suck in some young brains.

Get a life, people

Commenter

sarajane

Location

melbourne

Date and time

August 06, 2012, 7:55AM

Absolutely. Also we should have content moderators to screen all mail that passes through the hands of Australia Post and also train some people (I'm not sure what to call them) to oversee all personal phone calls to make sure they are kept to the standards of decency and good form that all right thinking people will no doubt agree upon (maybe we can call them 'Big Brothers', I think that has a nice ring to it). In the end it all comes down to civility and the maintenance of an obscenity free environment that we can all feel secure in. And if security isn't worth giving up our rights for then I just don't know what is.

Commenter

Honey Badger

Date and time

August 06, 2012, 8:05AM

I agree sarajane. Facebook and Twitter are just mediums for people to try forcing their opinions on others in the vain hope that they will actually care.

;-)

Commenter

Larry

Location

California

Date and time

August 06, 2012, 8:58AM

@Honey Badger: The difference is, mail and phone calls are private, whereas social media is public. Using your logic, would you argue public nudity/indecency should be legal, just because it's legal to do so at home?

Commenter

Bob

Date and time

August 06, 2012, 9:01AM

@BobMy remark was specifically (sorry for not making it clear) aimed at the suggestion that communications between peoples FB inboxes - which are essentially private email communications between people and are not publicly viewable - should be moderated.